Сравнительный анализ казахстанских протоколов диагностики и лечения в акушерстве и гинекологии с протоколами (руководствами) других стран
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pregnancy surveillance, even if the pregnancy proceeds physiologically, differs in all countries. As noted in the EuroWHO’s Document Essential Antenatal, Perinatal and Postpartum Care»(Copenhagen, 2002), the present-day antenatal care is associated with a great deal of sometimes very complex interventions and procedures where part of which is based on evidence, and the other ones are only applied because they have a long history of usage having become actually traditional. We have analyzed the relevant normative documents (diagnostics and treatment protocols) and clinical guidelines of Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Methods: comparative analysis, content-analysis, bibliographic, historical Conclusions: The Kazakhstan Protocols «Supervision of Physiological Pregnancy» (2010) correspond to the evidentiary medicine principles. The most of procedures and measures carried out for a pregnant woman across her pregnancy coincide with the same in Great Britain, Canada and Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".